MODERN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PVT LTD, MUMBAI V. ASSTT.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

ITA 117/MUM/2023

AI Insights

Bizznet Online Systems Pvt. Ltd. filed three appeals against the orders of the learned CIT (A) for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, which were initially dismissed due to delays in filing. The Tribunal considered the reasons for the delays, including the health issues of the company's director and inadequate advice from a tax advisor, and found them sufficient to condone the delays. The Tribunal referenced several Supreme Court decisions that advocate a liberal approach to condoning delays in legal proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT (A) for a decision on the merits, emphasizing the need for the assessee to furnish all details during the hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 125150 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji, Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) Vs. ACIT, Aakash Lavlesh Leisure (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRISURESH GAIKWAD
• Assessee Lawyers: BHARAT L. GANDHI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 147; 148; 191; 119

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM ITA Nos. 1117/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITA Nos. 1118 & 1113/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Bi zznet Onl ine S ys tem s P vt. Ltd. 1 st Floor, Gu lshan Vil la, Oom er Park , W arden Road, Go walia T ank, Mum bai-400 026 Vs. ACIT, Circle-1 Thane, (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCB2432R Assessee by : Shri Bharat L. Gandhi, Adv Revenue by : ShriSuresh Gaikwad, Sr. AR Date of hearing: 04.07.2023 Date of pronouncement : 05.07.2023 O R D E R PER BENCH 01. ITA Nos. 1113, 1118 & 1117/Mum/2023 is filed by Bizznet Online Systems Pvt. Ltd. (assessee / appellant) for Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2010-11. 02. ITA No. 1113/Mum/2023 is filed against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] for A.Y. 2011-12 dated 28 th February, 2023, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section Page | 2 ITA Nos. 1113, 1117 & 1118/Mum/2023 Bizznet Online Systems Pvt. Ltd; A.Ys. 10-11 & 11-12 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 18 th February, 2016, by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Thane (the learned Assessing Officer), was dismissed, as it was filed late by 191 days holding that request for condonation of delay is not substantiated and is not sufficient to justify the delay. Thus, the learned CIT (A) did not condone the delay of 191 days and dismissed the appeal. 03. ITA No.1118/Mum/2023 for A.Y. 2011-12 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the learned CIT (A) dated 23 rd February, 2023, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order passed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act, on 30 th August, 2016, by the learned Assessing Officer was also dismissed holding that delay of 189 days cannot be condoned as the reasons for condonation of delay are vague. 04. ITA No. 1117/Mum/2023 is filed for A.Y. 2010-11 against the order of the learned CIT (A) dated 23 rd March, 2023 against the penalty order under Section 271(1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 30 th August, 2016, wherein the delay of 119 days was not condoned by the learned CIT (A) holding that the reasons for delay were vague. 05. Thus, against all three appellate orders, assessee is in appeal before us. 06. At the time of hearing, the assessee preferred an adjournment request. The reasons for adjournment were Page | 3 ITA Nos. 1113, 1117 & 1118/Mum/2023 Bizznet Online Systems Pvt. Ltd; A.Ys. 10-11 & 11-12 not found proper as it did not give any reasons seeking the adjournment, hence it is rejected. We proceed to decide the appeal of the assessee that whether the learned CIT (A) was correct in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeals. 07. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that assessee explained the reason of the delay before the learned CIT (A) stating that the Director of the assessee company was not well as well as the advisor of the assessee company did not properly advise the assessee. The medical certificate of doctor was also submitted. The certificate from the tax advisory was also submitted. Despite this, the learned CIT (A) did not condone the delay. He submitted that assessee is not getting any benefit by not submitting the appeals in time. It was further stated that delay should be condoned and pedantic approach should not be adopted. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector of Land acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) of SCC (2) 387 and further, the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) Vs. ACIT (2019) 112 taxman.com 134 (SC). He further submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Aakash Lavlesh Leisure (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO (2019) 103 taxmann.com 248 (SC) has condoned the delay of 224 days in filing of the appeal on account of ailment of ex-chairman. Accordingly, he submitted that sufficient cause is shown by the assessee. Page | 4 ITA Nos. 1113, 1117 & 1118/Mum/2023 Bizznet Online Systems Pvt. Ltd; A.Ys. 10-11 & 11-12 08. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the learned CIT (A) submitting that if sufficient cause is not shown by the assessee, no fault can be found with the order of the learned CIT (A) in not condoning the delay. The learned Departmental Representative also vehemently submitted that on the merits of the case the learned CIT (A) has not dealt with and therefore, the huge paper book filed by the assessee cannot be considered at this stage. 09. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of renting of property. For A.Y. 2011-12, the return of income was filed on 25 th November, 2011, at ₹44,87,993/- .During the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2012-13, it was found that the rental income have been bifurcated by the assessee as income from other sources and income from house property. Against income from house property, the assessee has claimed standard deduction u/s 24 (a) of The Act at the rate of 30%. Against the income from other sources, the assessee has claimed deductions of several expenses. Therefore, the return of income which was earlier not scrutinized was reopened by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Ultimately, the total income was considered as income from House Property and 30% deduction under Section 24 of the Act was granted and the assessment was framed at ₹74,91,240/- by assessment order under Section Page | 5 ITA Nos. 1113, 1117 & 1118/Mum/2023 Bizznet Online Systems Pvt. Ltd; A.Ys. 10-11 & 11-12 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 28 th February, 2016. 010. Assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT (A), which was delayed by 191 days. The reason of delay, it was explained is on account of health of the Director of the company supported by medical certificate and also ignorance of tax advisory, supported by certificate of tax advisor also. The learned CIT (A) considered it as not a ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the delay. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector of land acquisition V MSt katiji (supra) has laid down certain principles and also stated that a liberal approach in condoning the delay should be adopted. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered and reiterated all these principles in the three decisions cited before us of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We find that the delay in filing of the appeal deserves to be condoned by the learned CIT (A). We are also conscious of the fact that the assessee is unable to explain the complete delay. Therefore, in the interest of justice, assessee is directed to pay ₹5,000/- as a cost for each of these three appeals to be deposited in ‘Prime Minister National Relief Fund’ within 30 days of the date of this order. Subject to the above, the delay in all these appeals, are condoned and matter is restored before the learned CIT (A) to decide all these three appeal in its merit. The assessee is further directed to furnish all the details before the learned CIT (A) on receipt of the notice of hearing. The learned CIT (A) after giving assessee an Page | 6 ITA Nos. 1113, 1117 & 1118/Mum/2023 Bizznet Online Systems Pvt. Ltd; A.Ys. 10-11 & 11-12 opportunity of hearing, if requested for, decide the issue in accordance with the law. 011. In the result, all these three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.07.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Mumbai, Dated 05.07.2023 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai